Art De La Guerre
Bienvenue sur le forum de discussion de la règle de jeu l'Art De La Guerre
 
FAQFAQ RechercherRechercher Liste des MembresListe des Membres Groupes d'utilisateursGroupes d'utilisateurs S'enregistrerS'enregistrer
ProfilProfil Se connecter pour vérifier ses messages privésSe connecter pour vérifier ses messages privés ConnexionConnexion
Using Army 236 - Wars of the Roses
Page 2 sur 2 Aller à la page Précédente  1, 2
Poster un nouveau sujet   Répondre au sujet
 Art De La Guerre Index du Forum > Army lists
Auteur Message
Luddite
Archer


Inscrit le: 15 Nov 2017
Messages: 52
MessagePosté le: Lun Fév 19, 2018 4:59 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
"can still get run down by knights if left unsupported in the open"

...which wouldn't fit with Wars of the Roses at all!

My understanding is that mounted troops were all but abandoned in this conflict due to the devastating power of the longbowmen formations. Mounted troops should probably be "mediocre" in this list! Laughing

I think the interpenetration-based tactics set out above should model the conflict well, and don't see a justification for "mixed" units.

Opinions vary clearly! Very Happy
_________________
http://luddite1811.blogspot.co.uk/
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé Visiter le site web de l'utilisateur
Maverick2909
Légionaire


Inscrit le: 01 Juil 2017
Messages: 101
Localisation: Oklahoma City, OK
MessagePosté le: Lun Fév 19, 2018 5:36 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Luddite a écrit:
"can still get run down by knights if left unsupported in the open"

...which wouldn't fit with Wars of the Roses at all!

My understanding is that mounted troops were all but abandoned in this conflict due to the devastating power of the longbowmen formations. Mounted troops should probably be "mediocre" in this list! Laughing

I think the interpenetration-based tactics set out above should model the conflict well, and don't see a justification for "mixed" units.

Opinions vary clearly! Very Happy


I can agree with you here. The mounted troops were all but abandoned by this period (minus the pricklers but those served a different purpose), although I would contend you have the reasoning only half correct. While longbowmen did lead to the decline of the mounted knight, the 2 handed weapon arguably had a bigger impact. The ability to field a weapon that could act as a spear, axe, hook, or thrusting weapon was huge.

As to the current representation of WotR list to the mixed units we are suggesting, I agree that *sometimes* they had detachments of archers who would act just in an archer block fashion, however the majority of the time, for the majority of the set piece battles archers were intermingled with the MAA and other foot and offered support/early combat shooting. I just believe that personally, if they were mixed units it would better reflect the true nature of WotR combat than it is currently set up. Also, I think having them all listed as elite is also highly inaccurate. Sure they were good, but were they elite good? I would say no.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Black Prince
Légionaire


Inscrit le: 17 Oct 2016
Messages: 134
MessagePosté le: Lun Fév 19, 2018 9:35 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
I thought it was gun powder that caused the demise of the mount knight. I would argue that in English armies the move from mounted knight to foot knight was more from there tactical deployment from the 100 year war. They fought more defensive battles and sieges on foot rather than using mounted charges once they became deskilled at the mounted charge (which supports your argument for mediocre) so you start loosing when charging longbow formations because you are charging with the maximum impact then you end up fighting on foot.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Hazelbark
Tribun


Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014
Messages: 903
MessagePosté le: Mar Fév 20, 2018 6:00 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Luddite a écrit:


My understanding is that mounted troops were all but abandoned in this conflict due to the devastating power of the longbowmen formations. Mounted troops should probably be "mediocre" in this list!


Not sure the historical record supports this. Solid infantry and pike in particular were a problem. But for example as Agincourt, the French were mostly dismounted.
Mounted assaults continued to be a feature well into the next century.

I think there is a different case of England not really producing the masses of mounted knights that continental cultures had more of a reputation for.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
footslogger
Vétéran


Inscrit le: 12 Jan 2015
Messages: 166
MessagePosté le: Mar Avr 10, 2018 1:23 am    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
I like ADLG a lot. But I think if you really want to do something that plays like the WotR, you might want to look at a WotR specific ruleset. I really like a Coat of Steel. It's great for doing WotR, but really won't work as a general game rules set like ADLG does. With the WotR I think you are getting into an era where there is a fair bit of knowledge about how stuff worked, and when you want to combine that with the ability to fight foes who weren't really there, it makes for a difficult gaming situation. To make it like the WotR it's probably best to take two WotR opponents and a set of rules specific to the period....

Having said that, in ADLG, when you are trying to make an army from the WotR list, for general purpose use against a multitude of opponents, how do you go about it?
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Maverick2909
Légionaire


Inscrit le: 01 Juil 2017
Messages: 101
Localisation: Oklahoma City, OK
MessagePosté le: Mar Avr 10, 2018 3:28 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Footslogger, great points and I would really like to try A Coat of Steel someday! I have been thinking a lot recently about the optimal WotR army (and to a lesser extent Flodden army), and I have some ideas which I think will work well. I’ll try and post a write up tonight when I have a chance to get in front of my desktop.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
footslogger
Vétéran


Inscrit le: 12 Jan 2015
Messages: 166
MessagePosté le: Mar Avr 10, 2018 9:37 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Maverick, could you drop me an email at aphillathehun at yahoo dot com? I'd like to ask you about the gaming scene in Oklahoma.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Maverick2909
Légionaire


Inscrit le: 01 Juil 2017
Messages: 101
Localisation: Oklahoma City, OK
MessagePosté le: Mer Avr 11, 2018 3:05 am    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Just got home and shot you an email. Let me know if you didn't get it and I can resend. Glad to hear you are considering moving back to the greatest state in the union! Very Happy

As for the WotR list, for a 200 point game I usually like to take one command of heavy sword as a hammer, one command of medium troops, usually all longbowmen to cover any terrain, and a command of mounted which should include at a minimum the light horse impact. Yes, I do realize this means you will have to play the filthy Lancastrians, I too must hold my nose the entire game to repel the repugnant stench of such a vile lot!

If you take the 4 command points plus the two light horse, that gives you a respectable +3 initiative. I am a big fan of minimizing the elite longbowmen and maximizing the regular welsh bowmen. This provides a solid medium troop core of 5 longbowmen for only 52 points and I even include the general sometimes to drop the point cost down to 49 (usually make competent).

For the hammer command I usually max out Heavy sword armor 2HW and throw in a foot knight or two. This command is where I put the brilliant general as you will have more than 6 troops in your hammer line. I haven't experimented with beefing it up, but a good option might be to add the mediocre swordsmen or mediocre spearmen. They are cheap cannon fodder but could be used to make sure your hammer isn't flanked.

Lastly you have the command I am least comfortable with, the mounted contingent. The WotR mounted kinda blow. None of them shoot, and their knights don't have impact (save the ONE Royal Bodyguard knight you get but at 15 points I found he isnt worth the cost). My latest experiment for this command is to throw the two heavy cav impact, two light cav impact, and some light infantry javelin into the command and have it act as a roaming strike force to pick off stragglers or take out a minor objective. Which actually is what part of the pricklers job was so somewhat historically accurate!

The army should land around 21-22 troops which a medium to medium-small sized force. I would avoid going below 20 units and getting above 22 units would be a very big stretch for this list. If you focus on your strengths which are Heavy Sword Hammer > Longbowmen in terrain > Mounted strike force you should do well.

Things I haven't tried yet: Knights, artillery, fortifications, scots allies. I would really like to get to try some of these options but haven't had the playtime to do so yet. If anyone has some feedback or would like to share how they are playing the WotR list I would love some discussion. Up to this point I have just winged the list as to what I felt was strong in ADLG but I'm by no means an expert yet!
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Mark G Fry
Archer


Inscrit le: 15 Juin 2017
Messages: 61
MessagePosté le: Ven Jan 11, 2019 7:05 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
I am aware that this is an old post - but the whole thing is IMHO pointless as no medieval army ever used this tactic.

This is a carry over from WRG rules (it also appears in FoG and Armarti) and is based on a misunderstanding of what happened at the Battle of Towton.

If somebody can show me a historic reference to Billmen (actually the term 'Billmen' didn't even enter the English language until the early C16th) or dismounted Men-at-Arms and Archer (Longbow armed soldiers) I'd be very happy to see this debate to a sensible conclusion - but otherwise it is just wargaming 'Chrome' - like Khmer chariots and Khazar War Wagons, or even mixed Pike and Longbow units in a Burgundian Ordonnance army.

The fact that early C15th English HYW soldiers armed with Longbows were also armed with hatchets, leaden mauls, mallets, axes or swords and bucklers would suggest that they could probably qualify for the MF swords, bow equivalent in LaDG. There is also a much debated theory that as the use of LB armed infantry progressed historically the archers got more heavily armoured, more heavily armed and started to adopt a closer formation so by the time of the WotR they could easily be classified as HF sword, longbow (not that such a classification exists of course).

So my advice - avoid the idea of interpenetration - it's a myth and will confuse your battleplan Laughing
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
  
 Art De La Guerre Index du Forum > Army lists
Page 2 sur 2 Aller à la page Précédente  1, 2
Poster un nouveau sujet   Répondre au sujet Toutes les heures sont au format GMT

 
Sauter vers:  
Vous ne pouvez pas poster de nouveaux sujets dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas répondre aux sujets dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas éditer vos messages dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas supprimer vos messages dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas voter dans les sondages de ce forum